Re: Seld-defeating US foreign policy
As I said, an Islamic regime is objectionable if it tolerates terror against non islamic minorities, thus creating, perhaps unintentionally, an environment that facilitates terror against external infidels - that is to say, terror against me and people like me.
You say a lot of wacky stuff, so it suprises me that I find this pragraph to actually make some sense.
In this context a very strong case can be made that the US caused the Khmer Rouge to come to power, precisely by performing in a way similar to what you espouse.
That "case" is a nutty rationalization put forward by the former fans of the Khmer Rouge to rationalize their bad conduct.
No. You've got to do more reading. Sihoanouk was in power and loosely held a coalition together. In part because he believed it and in part because it was necessary to hold this coalition together, Sihoanouk did not spout particularly pro-American rhetoric. As a result, the US/CIA backed Lon Nol to overthrow Sihoanouk. Lon Nol could by no means hold things together , so in swept the Khmer Rouge, backed by Mao and the Chicoms. Let's remember some facts here: The US backed the ferociously corrupt Chiang regime, even helping them sack China's treasuries. The US fought China in Korea and was now occupying it. MacArthur threatened to make China a nuclear "Parking Lot". The US was in Vietnam trying to fight their way up. So it would have been pretty evident to anyone watching that the US was trying to undermine the PRC. In fact, this was also a main motivation for the Cultural Revolution: Mao wanted to move heavy industry out into the countryside, away from easy bomb-ability by the Americans. (Of course, that idea was actually used by Mao for consolidating his politcal power which was always with the peasants, but that's besides the point). Mao did the reasonable thing and fought us (and won) in all 3 theaters. I'll agree with you pretty quickly if you say Mao was a fairly Stalinist butcher, but in any event he made use of the Khmer Rouge to push a US-backed puppet out of the peninsula. Note that only after Mao kicked our asses repeatedly did Nixon and Kissinger decide to make friends with Mao and the PRC (which was the smart thing to do all along after the Sino-Soviet split). What if the US had not followed such an aggressive policy towards the PRC? Chinese history gives us a clear indication: They would never have backed the Khmer Rouge. (Sihoanouk regularly traveled to China before and after that time, BTW, and was moderately friendly with Jong Nan Hai.) In addition, the notion of having to hide Chinese industry from the Americans could never have been used as a credible reason for lauching the Cultural Revolution. In the end, our policies in SE Asia likely caused millions to be killed, and in the end were self-defeating. A complete fiasco. And the same thing is happening in the Middle East. So even if one agrees that your goals are 'admirable' (and I question that), your methods would also be a complete, unmitigated disaster. -TD _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Tyler Durden wrote:
What if the US had not followed such an aggressive policy towards the PRC? Chinese history gives us a clear indication: They would never have backed the Khmer Rouge. (Sihoanouk regularly traveled to China before and after that time, BTW, and was moderately friendly with Jong Nan Hai.) In addition, the notion of having to hide Chinese industry from the Americans could never have been used as a credible reason for lauching the Cultural Revolution.
In the end, our policies in SE Asia likely caused millions to be killed, and in the end were self-defeating. A complete fiasco. And the same thing is happening in the Middle East.
I certainly wouldn't argue that US policy in Indochina was anything other than a fiasco, nor that the current misadventure in the Middle East will be spared the same fate, but the Chinese had another very important reason to back the Khmer Rouge against Vietnam - Russia. The Soviets supplied heavy military and financial aid to Vietnam, in return for an anticipated naval base through which they could extend their power into the South Seas. They never got the base - the Vietnamese played them like a fiddle - but the threat was enough for the PRC to view Vietnam as an enemy-by-proxy, and so to back the Khmer Rouge. In addition, the whole of Indochina was (and is) a clusterfuck of rivalries and feuds going back centuries. The (relatively) sudden appearance of a bunch of new regimes, all with revolutionary mindsets through which to apply their old vendettas, probably made the bloodshed inevitable - although US intervention undoubtedly made it worse. W
-- On 21 Oct 2004 at 10:28, Tyler Durden wrote:
No. You've got to do more reading. Sihoanouk was in power and loosely held a coalition together. In part because he believed it and in part because it was necessary to hold this coalition together, Sihoanouk did not spout particularly pro-American rhetoric. As a result, the US/CIA backed Lon Nol to overthrow Sihoanouk.
This used to be a self flattering delusion, is now a lie. US records have been opened, we know that the overthrow came as a complete surprise to the US, and that initially the US did not know whose side Lon Nol was on. What happened was that Sihanouk's allies, the North Vietnamese, attacked him. This discredited Sihanouk's foreign policy, and Sihanouk himself, and led to those who sought to save Cambodia from Vietnamese domination, sought to avoid the installation of the (then seemingly puppet) Khmer Rouge, overthrowing Sihanouk. Shawcross, no friend of the US, reluctantly conceded this after doing a big freedom of information thing.
The US was in Vietnam trying to fight their way up. So it would have been pretty evident to anyone watching that the US was trying to undermine the PRC.
You live in a world of delusion. Your dates are all wrong, your events are all fiction.
Mao did the reasonable thing and fought us (and won) in all 3 theaters. I'll agree with you pretty quickly if you say Mao was a fairly Stalinist butcher, but in any event he made use of the Khmer Rouge to push a US-backed puppet out of the peninsula
The Khmer Rouge were primarily backed by the Soviet Union at first. When it became apparent that they were not the puppets that those who organized them and initially armed them intended them to be, they subsequently received more backing from China, and less from the Soviet Union, but they were brought to power by support from both China and the Soviet Union.
What if the US had not followed such an aggressive policy towards the PRC?
The US never followed an aggressive policy towards the PRC.
Chinese history gives us a clear indication: They would never have backed the Khmer Rouge. (Sihoanouk regularly traveled to China before and after that time, BTW, and was moderately friendly with Jong Nan Hai.)
Sihanouk was friendly, indeed abjectly servile, to the North Vietnamese and the Soviet Union, yet the North Vietnamese created the Khmer Rouge and attacked Cambodia. Same thing happened with Laos, where the Americans never got involved at all to any significant extent. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG zb5a74rNSc9lJdS/j1FjUvRf0YLLcKMfJtnK+yY8 4vGyjijdoPOZR1s3LKxaVmjbOBleszE0W5/7pQmoR
participants (3)
-
James A. Donald -
Tyler Durden -
Will Morton